LAGUNA BEACH, Denny Freidenrich: There is a simple and direct way to resolve the

A view looking north toward the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station from San Onofre State Beach. (Register file photo)

debate about San Onofre [“NRC posts San Onofre generator analysis,” Local, March 9]. The issue needs to be put to a vote in Orange and San Diego Counties on the same day.

The county counsels in the two regions need to draft identical ballot measures that simply ask for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote on reopening the nuclear power plant. This way, the 6 million people living closest to San Onofre, which is operated by Southern California Edison, will have their say in the matter.

I’m guessing those evacuated from Fukushima two years ago in Japan might have preferred that option. Today, their former homes, schools, shops and parks are shuttered in a veritable 20-kilometer “dead zone,” which some experts predict could last as long as 10,000 years.

A simultaneous special election in Orange and San Diego counties will allow people the opportunity to voice their opinions on this issue. After all, if San Onofre blows one day, where will everyone go? There simply aren’t enough condos in Palm Springs to accommodate us all.

______

DIAMOND BAR, Patrick Lavin, business manager, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: Regarding California Senate Bill 2 and the push for clean energy: along with rising demand for electricity in California and throughout America, nuclear energy must continue to play a pivotal role here. Many homes and businesses rely on emission-free energy for reliable electricity. There is much support for new nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy also can boost the local economy with jobs with competitive salaries. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nuclear-energy jobs pay 44 percent more than average salaries. Nuclear jobs also account for more than half of green jobs in the utility sector. In addition, with respect to the effect on the local economies in proximity to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, it has a tendency to generate much income in that area.

While technical issues remain at San Onofre, which will be addressed, the safety record at nuclear facilities is pristine. I am confident that those issues will be handled in the appropriate manner. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that nuclear energy is an essential part of California’s energy market and the nation’s long-term plan.

More than 100 Local 47 members work at SONGS along with Utility Workers Union of America Local 246 and many Building Trades members, engaged in maintenance at the nuclear plant.

Sen. Barbara Boxer and the environmental activists do not seem to require facts. Instead, perception of wrongdoing supports their agenda. The false perception is sustained simply by continuously voicing a stream of doubt. The truth is very straightforward. No one has ever been injured as the result of a radiation leak at a civilian-operated nuclear power generation plant in the United States.

In comparison to California, Yuskis says Texas “absolves high-income ‘rich people’ from contributing to the state’s finances by avoiding a state income tax.” Yuskis argues the “middle income” picks up that burden via high property taxes and lauds Proposition 13.

Yuskis provides no data as to how much of one’s income (rich or poor) is spent on property taxes. He claims a Texas friend pays $6,000 annually on a residence assessed at $200,000. True. A search reveals that Texas property taxes average 1.81 percent of assessed value. California’s average is at 0.74 percent.

However, Texas counties can differ. Yuskis uses an extreme case to make his point. As the median Texas home assessment is $123,800 and California’s is $384,200, the average homeowner in Texas pays $2,275 (3.65 percent of annual income) and the average homeowner in California pays $2,839 (3.59 percent of annual income). Furthermore, not every Californian benefits from Prop. 13. Recent property buyers gain little benefit. Prop. 13 benefits need time to grow. When Prop. 13 passed, it was disclosed that the average Californian changed residence every five years. This number includes renters, but also includes homeowners.

Finally, many Democratic lawmakers have opposed Prop. 13 since its inception and have tried to run around it, amend it, distort its meaning, prove it’s unconstitutional or seek to have it just reversed. With the required majority in each house in Sacramento, this last scenario is not an impossibility.

______

SANTA ANA, Sidney Hatchl: Proposition 13 is the only really useful change in tax law since 1954 that I can identify. I was not a homeowner at the time it was passed, but I supported it. My only reservation was that there was no equivalent limitation on sales-tax-rate increases.

Prop. 13 tends to level the comparison of California with Texas, which has no income tax but lacks a limit on property-tax increases. The legislation is a major reason for businesses, working people and retired people to stay in California. The problems in this state are caused by exorbitant salaries and pensions for public employees, boondoggles and misuse of funds. The problems are not due to restraints on the ability of the authorities to tax.

______

SAN CLEMENTE, Jeff Pytel: Michael Yuskis leaves out the important fact that, even though his fictional middle-class homeowner in Texas may pay $4,000 more in property taxes per year, that same homeowner, who earns $70,000 (middle class in California), would pay approximately $5,500 to $7,000 more in state income taxes in California. If he or she earned $100,000, that number would jump to approximately $11,000 to $13,000.

Also, don’t forget that Sacramento wants to gut Prop. 13, which protects the middle-class homeowner, for more money to pay off the state’s unions. It is sad that these facts will soon drive the California tax base out of state.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.